A former Conservative higher education minister has criticised the UK government’s present freeze on tuition fees as “Corbyn-lite”.
Speaking in a debate on the “impasse” surrounding the country’s higher education funding system, Lord Johnson of Marylebone argued that there was nothing fundamentally wrong with the current model. However, the decision to keep fees at ?9,250 a year – the same level as in 2017-18, and just ?250 more than in 2012-13 – would also require additional state subsidy on a scale not dissimilar to that proposed by Jeremy Corbyn when he was leader of the Labour Party, he argued.
“The system that Tony Blair introduced 25 years ago, which is a time-limited and income-contingent graduate contribution to the repayment of heavily subsidised tuition and maintenance loans is the least bad of all available options,” he said in the debate hosted by Policy Exchange.
The former minister for universities and science under three different prime ministers said there are “two easily fixable flaws” in the UK system – namely that tuition fees have been eroded by inflation, and that there is no link between fees and the quality of education on offer.
He believes the sector should have stuck with the mechanism created under David Cameron’s government –?where institutions offering high quality teaching based on the Teaching Excellence Framework were allowed to raise fees in line with inflation.
“Had we done so, we wouldn’t be in any of the problems we are today, university funding would be on a much more sustainable footing that it actually is,” he said.
“Such a system, linking funding to quality, would align the interests of students, taxpayers and providers in a highly desirable way.”
Referencing Mr Corbyn, Lord Johnson said there were serious disadvantages to the principal alternatives, what he called “Corbynism” and “Corbyn-lite”.
“Corbynism being effectively free tuition, which would mean 100 per cent taxpayer funding and a return of number controls to avoid undue pressure on the public finances,” he said.
“The second alternative I see as the Corbyn-lite version, which is maintaining the present freeze on tuition fees, substituting that lost income in real terms with additional grant funding for high-cost subjects and slamming on number controls.”
A third option of a graduate tax comes with complexities around avoidance, overpayment and the “flight of talented students to overseas universities”, he added. "Finding a funding system that protects both the student interest and the taxpayer interests and making sure that they’re properly aligned is not actually that complicated," he added, dismissing calls for another major review into student finance.
Sir Philip Augar, who headed?the last review during Theresa May’s time as prime minister?and chaired the debate which was hosted with the support of Durham University, said universities are a “massive national asset that we must not be allowed to waste”.
Former education secretary Justine Greening proposed the scrapping of student loans, which “isn’t really a loan”, and using the ?300 million annual cost of the Student Loans Company to widen participation.
She put the forward the idea of a?“more progressive” graduate tax, which is free at the point of delivery, but to which students contribute over their working life, similar to national insurance.
Such an approach – which she first proposed in 2018 – would be a vote winner for the Conservative party, which has “seemingly turned its face on students and the aspirations of students”, said Ms Greening.
Lastly, Iain Mansfield, director of research and head of education and science at Policy Exchange, said?number controls were “the only way to put the genie back in the bottle”.
“It may simply mean slower growth but there is nothing wrong with that. By restoring number controls we can ensure that the places we need are properly funded, properly resourced and properly supported,” he added.
